Everytime You Say Cheap And Vulgar I'm Going To Kiss You: Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)

It is really hard to fathom and era where the Hays code did not exist, or has, subsequently, influenced what is allowed in mainstream film.  Sure a lot of contemporary films through caution to the wind and deliver base jokes and bawdy humor with little concern for structure or delivery, yet this has not always been the case and in the earlier decades of film, particularly in the musical and comedy genres pushing the barriers of the  moment before strict censorship, which led to punning and backdoor sexual innuendos that simply are too wise and informed to play well on contemporary audiences.  This is one of many things that manages to make Gold Diggers of 1933 a standout work of cinema, one that is entirely a product of the escapist cinema of The Great Depression, while also being revolutionary and ahead of its time.  While I have been on record as say that the success and watchability of most of these early thirties studio films is directly a result of Busby Berkeley's mesmerizing choreography and its sumptuously engaging cinematography, there is a rather watchable, albeit, simple story involved.  Performers like Ginger Rogers and Dick Powell are electrifying, delivering a presence on celluloid that would not be replicated until Gene Kelly and and Debbie Reynolds took flight in the equally moving Singin' In The Rain.  Again, what makes a work like Gold Diggers of 1933 stand out in comparison to its later variations on the genre is that these films are referencing, if not directly commenting on their predecessor.  Between the singing in pig latin to prove that the sound was indeed synched to the image and stories of wild dreams of Broadway success, everything that has made the musical one of the staples of American cinema owes its success to this film, as well as 42nd Street which was released the same year.  As I mentioned, Gold Diggers of 1933 in all its cinematic glory is rather indicative of the era, to some degree, because I have seen a lot of films, ones with decidedly dark endings, yet the manner with which this film executes itself results in that closing number being a stark contrast so lathered in a chiaroscuro madness as to result in being one of the darker closing sequences I have seen in film, standing right up there with Godzilla's death.

Gold Diggers of 1933 focuses on a group of aspiring Broadway performers, who happen to all be women, therefore, leading to their being colloquially known by society as a group of gold diggers.  The group is led by the young and optimistic Polly (Ruby Keeler) who seems content with any role as long as she can live out her passion.  Included in the mix is the comedically inclined Trixie (Aline MacMahon) and group's torch singer Carol (Joan Blondell), as well as the member by association Fay (Ginger Rogers) who is so fixated on her success that she has no qualms stepping on the toes of those around her.  The group is disheartened when they discover that their recent Broadway revue has been cancelled due to lack of funds, almost entirely a result of the depression.  The women, defeated, return to their New York flat, hungry and hoping they can shy away from having to pay rent for yet another month.  It is not until Polly overhears the harmonic singing and piano playing from a complex across the street, where she discovers a songwriter named Brad (Dick Powell).  His talent is blatant, and, indeed, quite infectious, so much so that the girls' manager Barney Hopkins (Ned Sparks) suggest that he serve as the sole songwriter for his upcoming revue.  Brad is, at first, reluctant, due to the possibility of being seen publicly, but eventually agrees to the proposition on the grounds that Polly be allowed the female lead.  Yet, the issue of money emerges, when Barney explains that he cannot fund the endeavor fully, at which point, Brad offers a considerable amount of money should there be no questions asked about how it was obtained.  Blind with the possibilities the group agrees, although Trixie is rather suspicious and believes Brad to be a robber who has been making the rounds through the United States.  During dress rehearsals Brad is continually critical of the male lead, at which point Barney suggest that he step in, but he is still hesitant for inexplicable reasons, but on opening night when the lead falls sick, Brad steps in to save the show and the financial stability of all involved.  What unwinds is a series of revelations concerning Brad's coming from wealth and the "disgrace" of him lowering himself to the world of musical theater.  Yet, through determination and a will to prove their value the girls and Brad trick his relatives into accepting their world by default, allowing for the show to succeed without any notable hitches.  Yet, realizing the realities of war and depression in America the film closes with the sobering "Remember My Forgotten Man" as if to suggest escapism is a foolish and unhealthy endeavor.

While it would be more than feasible to talk about the censorship and degrees of escapism that are involved within this film, I am more drawn to consider the communal relationship involved with the "gold diggers" who navigate the narrative space of the work.  I choose the word commune, because there is a decided embracing of their own otherness as a result of being feminine.  Indeed, when Brad's relatives suggest that both Trixie and Carol are nothing more than lowly gold diggers who are attempting to use their looks and feminine charm to grab up men, they certainly react critically, but also use it as a moment to appropriate the situation into something that will allow them to advance by exploiting the foolish and ignorant assumptions of two white men. This is best evidenced in the hat buying scene, wherein both Trixie and Carol exploit the fears of the men for the dastardly doings of such lower-class women, while also using their sexuality to attain items.  It is a communal action that results in their self-protection from the lechery of the men while also advancing their cause as career women.  It should be noted that much of what ties the women together, aside from their gender is their equal lack in regards to economic privilege, indeed they share a communal space because it is a necessity in the high-end pricey neighborhoods of New York City.  A layer of issues do emerge then when one considers Brad's entrance (invasion) of their communal space, while it might be assumed that he is doing so on a shared class oppression, the revelation that he is indeed quite wealthy betrays this notion considerably, although his acceptance of the women's struggles and his genuine admiration for the business and, more importantly, Polly, allow him some leeway to be a progressive character.  In this reading of the community of women that are the "gold diggers" one must necessarily consider Trixie as a unique stand alone character.  In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest her to be a lesbian character, one that desires the companionship of other women on a level far more than platonic.  Indeed, masking the lesbian character in the comedic is not something unusual in media, another famous example being Sally Rogers from The Dick Van Dyke show, whose defeatist quest for a man took on layers of implications.  Considering Trixie as a lesbian figure allows for a further explanation of her defensive attitude towards the women and their engagements to the outside world, especially when Polly expresses interest in Brad, as does it explain her detached attitude towards the advances of the elderly gentlemen caller she picks up later in the film.

Key Scene:  All of the Shadow Waltz sequence, water dolly shots and neon violins alike.

This is a marvelous film, I intend to nab the entire Berkeley box set, although it is available as a stand alone DVD.

I'm Made Of Wax Larry. What Are You Made Of?: Night At The Museum (2006)

Sometimes a middle of the road, uncomplicated family friendly movie is exactly what a person needs to distract them from the very real and work heavy semester they will undertake in graduate school.  At least, this is what the Ben Stiller vehicle Night at the Museum provided for me last night as I attempted to forget about the fact that I will have very little free time until at least the end of April.  I will admit that I would never have given this family feature any credence, were it not yet another discovery as a result of buying DVD lots and being afforded copies of films that I had otherwise dismissed.  Of course, Night at the Museum was not a revelation in the same way some of the other films within this method of obtaining have proven to be, but that should not mean that I found it to be terrible.  For a feature focusing on one man's attempt to, on a cursory level, maintain the magical world of a museum coming to life at night, and proving his worth to a doubting son on a deeper level, it is really hard to think terribly about this film.  In fact, Night at the Museum gets its message out, leaves viewers happy with some decent special effects and certainly has enough cameos to make a viewer of any age ecstatic.  Furthermore, while I am wary to give Ben Stiller complete, unadulterated praise (despite adoring Tropic Thunder) it is hard not to love his commitment to such an absurd plot, so much so that you can believe him both as a man struggling to maintain his paternal identity, as well as a befuddled night guard placed in an absolutely incomprehensible level.  One cannot help but consider the possibilities of this notably star-studded film had the producers considered providing even a bit more time with the work, as opposed to clearly creating it as a quick money grabber, suitable for a handful of straight-to-DVD spinoffs.  Night at the Museum could have been a far greater and respectable film, but at the same time it could have been way worse and probably still made a considerable amount of money, it deserves acknowledgement at the very least and maybe even an earnest viewing cinephiles with even the most discerning of tastes.

Night at the Museum focuses on the constantly changing life of Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) a single dad living in New York, while attempting to make his various "big ideas" translate into money with little or no success, much to the disappointment of his ex-wife and son Nick (Jake Cherry) who is proving to take a liking to his mom's new husband and successful Wall Street broker Don (Paul Rudd).  Desperate to make a respectable living and assure his ability to stay close to his son, Larry agrees to take a job at a museum on the night shift, even though he has been warned of the headache that will invariably ensue with the notably odd job.  While the former employees seem quick to pass the torch to Larry, he, nonetheless, sees the work as a means to make money for doing next to nothing, however, during his first night on the job he realizes that working at this particular museum may be a bit more complicated than he initially assumed, especially since everything in the place comes to life thanks to an ancient Egyptian rune that adorns the wall above a sarcophagus.  Assuming it to be a bizarre hallucination it is not until Larry is confronted by the museum manager about some figurines being out of place that he realizes it is, in fact, something much more complex.  When it is revealed that the rune causing this magic to occur is of high value and sought after by a set of thieves with close ties to the museum, not to mention the threat by the director of Larry losing his job if he is to find another thing out of place, Larry plans a means to properly maintain the wily world of the museum.  This of course involves the help of his skeptical son and the eventual aid of one of the museums curators, for whom Larry has taken a liking.  It is through his ability to acknowledge history, as well as the promotion of unity amongst the disparate and famously jarring identities within the museum that Larry is eventually able to save his job, as well as the magic of the museum.  More importantly, Larry is able to gain the much desire respect of his son and assure their future together.

It seems a bit foolish for me to dig too heavily into the commentary within the film, but to ignore the notion of history within Night at the Museum would be equally foolish in my book, particularly its clear promotion of studying it in order to better understand one's own relationship with the world around them.  For Larry this has a very literal sense, in that he is forced to learn the ways of Mongolians, warring Romans and rambunctious cowboys, in order to maintain the museum from delving into complete chaos, not to mention learning the ways of a variety of animals as to assure that they do not maim one another.  This learning, while narratively manifesting itself with his relationship to the museum, nonetheless, reflects his own evolution, particularly considering that he is depicted as a spineless, self-loathing individual, emphasized by a poster in an elevator, as well as his own inability to get a job, or blame inventive competitors for his failures.  It is not until Larry gains knowledge that he is better able to navigate between his past failures and the promises of his future, going so far as to defy historically powerful figures like Attila the Hun, as well as deal with the tiny revolutions in his world, brilliantly visualized through the cowboys and Romans.  These tiny figures serve as an exceptional metaphor because in the films earlier portions it is clear that Larry is allowing for a series of small inconveniences and missteps to completely navigate his life.  Furthermore, it is no coincidence that when he learns to harness the power of a T-Rex and break a few members of the museum from glass freedom, or even tame an entire menagerie of animals that he finally asserts a self-esteem and authority that gains him respect from his colleagues, as well as his son.  Sure the antics of Larry taming the zoo have a great cinematic appeal, however, one must consider how these elements exist as a reflection of his life, as it is attached from the museum.

Key Scene:  Robin Williams is Teddy Roosevelt is Robin Williams...enough said.

Rent this film, by all means it is not close to worth owning, but who knows if you are in a bad mood or need to relieve some stress it is well worth affording a few hours towards.